Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Attributing Structured-Output Gains in Function Calling: Interface Alignment versus Procedural Transfer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Prompt-prepended function-calling “skills” often raise structured-output scores by teaching the evaluator’s preferred wrapper, not by transferring reusable tool-use procedures.

desk verdict Solid methods paper: skill-injection gains on BFCL/API-Bank often look like interface alignment, not transferable procedure, and the multi-control evidence holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02595 v1 pith:TCTLJSNS submitted 2026-07-01 cs.SE cs.PL

Wanyi Chen , Daoyuan Chen , Fang Kong This is my paper
classification cs.SEcs.PL
keywords functioncallingskillinjectionstructuredoutputinterfacealignmentproceduraltransferformatcomplianceevaluationattributionpromptengineering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Structured-output function-calling tests reward two things at once: choosing the right tools and arguments, and expressing those calls in the scorer’s expected interface. The paper argues that gains from prepending trajectory-derived skill text therefore need attribution before anyone can treat them as transferable agent skill. It introduces a four-layer protocol that re-scores the same outputs after normalizing wrapper-key aliases, compares full skills against concise format-only contracts, re-extracts skills from balanced high/low demonstrations, and checks whether any residual survives across model families and output contracts. In the audited setting, format-only prompts can match or beat full skills, the largest sub-frontier gains disappear under repaired or balanced induction, and length-matched generic procedural prompts nearly reproduce target-native extracted-skill gains on a second API-calling suite. The point is not that format compliance is worthless—it is a real engineering capability—but that a higher score alone does not certify procedural transfer.

What carries the argument

A four-layer gain-attribution protocol for prompt-prepended skill injection: canonicalized rescoring (merge only same-role wrapper keys while preserving arguments), format-only controls (state the output contract without task procedure), repaired/balanced induction (change extractor family and high-score demonstration bias), and portability checks (cross-family and cross-contract residual tests). These layers jointly label gains as scorer-sensitive, interface-sufficient, induction-sensitive, or procedure-supported residual.

What would settle it

On the same models and held-out items, show that full extracted skills still clearly beat format-only, neutral, and length-matched generic procedural prompts after canonicalized scoring, balanced same-family induction, and target-native contracts, with paired item-level tests confirming a stable residual in the skill’s favor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the function-calling structured-output setting studied here, several large prompt-induced skill-injection gains are more consistent with interface alignment than with robust procedural transfer. Format-only prompts match or exceed full extracted skills in key cells; repaired and balanced induction removes the largest sub-frontier improvements; and API-calling target-native gains are matched within half a percentage point by length-matched generic procedural prompts. A gain is treated as procedure-supported only when it remains after canonicalization, beats format and generic controls, survives cleaner induction, and keeps direction under portability checks.

Load-bearing premise

The interface-versus-procedure diagnosis assumes that the paper’s fixed local item subsets, local AST comparator, and native API match metric (with some unsupported rows excluded) are faithful enough proxies for the broader class of structured-output function-calling claims it advises on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Structured-output skill-gain claims should report canonicalized metrics and format-only baselines before crediting transferable procedure.
  • Skill extractors that sample only high-scoring demonstrations risk baking evaluator format cues into the skill text.
  • Format compliance can be valued as a deployable engineering capability without being misread as tool-choice skill transfer.
  • Trajectory-distilled skills need residual evidence after the four controls before claims of cross-model or cross-contract transfer.
  • Releasing a canonicalized scoring companion (as the paper does) separates wrapper aliasing from task-policy change on the same outputs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Skill libraries that look strong under one scorer may collapse when the output contract changes even if the underlying tool policy is unchanged.
  • Optimization against format-sensitive rewards may teach wrapper tokens more readily than better tool decisions.
  • The same attribution ladder can be applied to other structured-output domains—SQL-only execution, code fences, nested tool schemas—where surface form and content are scored together.
  • Randomizing or rotating wrapper schemas at evaluation time would force more of the measured signal onto procedure rather than contract matching.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that prompt-prepended skill-injection gains on structured-output function-calling benchmarks often reflect interface alignment (evaluator-preferred wrappers/schemas) rather than transferable procedural skill. It introduces a four-layer attribution protocol—canonicalized rescoring of wrapper-key aliases (Eq. 1–2), format-only controls, repaired/balanced induction, and portability/cross-contract checks—and applies it to a fixed BFCL-v2 subset plus API-Bank, with MATH-500 and MultiHop-RAG as null scope checks. Empirically, format-only prompts match or exceed full skills on key BFCL cells (e.g., Qwen3-8B), repaired/balanced induction removes the largest sub-frontier gains (Tables 4–5, 9), and length-matched generic procedural prompts nearly reproduce API-Bank target-native skill gains (within ~0.5 pp; Table 16). The authors release BFCL-CANONICAL and recommend reporting canonicalized metrics, format-only baselines, and induction robustness before claiming procedural transfer.

Significance. If the diagnosis holds, it is a useful methodological correction for agent/tool-use evaluation: structured-output scores conflate task policy with interface compliance, so skill-injection claims need explicit attribution. Strengths include a clear multi-control protocol, same-output standard-vs-canonicalized comparisons, paired sign tests and bootstrap CIs on claim-bearing BFCL contrasts (Table 7), cross-family format dominance (Table 15), held-out API-Bank generic near-parity, item-level case studies (Appendix B), and a public release of code, data, and BFCL-CANONICAL. The contribution is constructive rather than purely negative—it treats format compliance as a real engineering capability while reserving stronger procedural claims for residual evidence that survives the controls. Scope is appropriately limited to BFCL/API-Bank-style audits rather than all structured-output benchmarks.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim is well supported within the stated scope, but the manuscript still needs a sharper, earlier statement of what is *not* claimed. Limitations, §3, and A.12–A.17 correctly note that the local 300-item BFCL-v2 JSON subset, local AST comparator, native API-Bank required-parameter metric (unsupported-execution rows excluded), and non-live selected-model official-prompt audits are not full leaderboard submissions. Because the abstract and conclusion recommend the protocol for function-calling skill-gain attribution more generally, the main text should state in one place (e.g., end of §3 or start of §5) that the diagnosis is scoped to these proxies and that official full-suite leaderboard rescoring remains future work. This is a load-bearing framing fix, not a request for new experiments.
  2. §4.2–4.3 and Tables 4–5/9 treat repaired/balanced induction as an attribution stress test rather than pure causal isolation (extractor family and demo pool both change). That is methodologically honest, but the prose sometimes still reads as if ‘repair removes the gain’ is a single-mechanism finding. Please tighten the language so that every claim-bearing sentence about original vs. repaired skills is explicitly labeled as extraction/demo sensitivity (as in Table 4’s caption), and keep the 2×2 factorial (Table 9) as the primary evidence that high-score demo selection is a main driver. No new runs are required if the wording is made consistent.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 1 and Eq. (3): the format-shift regression (r=0.84, n=8) is useful but should be labeled more clearly as descriptive given the small n, consistent with the parenthetical already in the text.
  2. Table 2 is an excellent evidence map; consider adding one row that points readers to the Spider external structured-output probe (A.7) so that the interface-compliance pattern outside function-call wrappers is easier to find.
  3. Notation: Acc_can / ϕ / κ are defined clearly in §3; ensure the same symbols appear consistently in figure captions and Appendix A.3 when referring to canonicalized matrices.
  4. A few presentation nits: ‘V oyager’ spacing in references; long GitHub URL line-break in the abstract; and occasional dense multi-clause sentences in §4 that could be split for readability.
  5. Appendix A.16’s note that BFCL-CANONICAL matches a required-content diagnostic on the analyzed files is important; a one-sentence pointer in the main-text canonicalization paragraph would help readers who skip the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical attribution protocol with independent controls, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation or prediction that is forced by its own definitions, fitted parameters, or load-bearing self-citations. Its central results are experimental comparisons on BFCL/API-Bank-style audits: full extracted skills versus format-only prompts, original high-score induction versus repaired/balanced induction, and target-native skills versus length-matched generic procedural prompts, plus canonicalized rescoring of the same outputs. Labels such as interface-dominated or induction-sensitive are post-hoc descriptive categories defined by those controls (Section 3 Attribution rule; Table 2), not quantities that equal the skill text or the scorer by construction. Canonicalization (Eq. 1) is a narrow key-alias diagnostic applied to fixed outputs; it does not redefine accuracy to manufacture the claimed residual. Phase-1 skills are deliberately induced from high-scoring demos and then stress-tested by Phase-2 repaired/balanced extraction and generic controls; the disappearance of flagship gains under those controls is an empirical finding, not a tautology. Self-citations (e.g., EigenData) are used only to distinguish contribution and are not uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that force the main claim. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and its own ablations; residual scope limits (local 300-item subset, non-live audits) are stated as boundaries, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

This is an empirical evaluation paper, not a formal derivation. Load-bearing choices are the descriptive neutral band, the local scoring proxies, and the operational definitions of interface vs procedure. No new physical entities; invented constructs are methodological labels and the released canonical scorer.

free parameters (2)
  • neutral_band_tau = ±3 percentage points
    Hand-chosen ±3 pp descriptive screen for unpaired local matrices and harmful/neutral labeling; appendix checks ±2/±5 but the main narrative uses 3 pp.
  • format_shift_regression_on_8_models = r=0.84, R²=0.71, n=8
    Descriptive linear fit Δstd ≈ β0 + β1·δm with r=0.84, R²=0.71 on n=8 BFCL-CONTRACT points; coefficients are fit to the observed key-shift data, not predicted a priori.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BFCL-style all-call AST accuracy after narrow wrapper-key canonicalization (name/function/function_name; arguments/parameters/params) preserves semantic call identity for attribution purposes.
    Eq. 1 and Table 1 define what is and is not merged; the claim that residual Δcan is more task-policy-like rests on this de-aliasing assumption.
  • domain assumption A concise format-only JSON/API contract without task procedure is a valid control for isolating interface alignment from extracted procedural content.
    §4.1–4.2 treat format-only ≥ full skill as evidence against uniquely procedural attribution; this is a design assumption about control purity.
  • domain assumption Local native API/required-parameter match (and row-fresh/strict variants) on held-out API-Bank rows is informative for cross-contract attribution even though it is not official leaderboard accuracy.
    §3 and A.12–A.13 explicitly use local diagnostics; the 0.5 pp generic-match claim depends on this metric choice.
  • standard math Standard statistical tools (exact sign tests, paired bootstrap CIs, temperature-0 single-run matrices) suffice to support the scoped qualitative diagnosis.
    Table 7 and appendix paired analyses; no novel statistical theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Phase-1 high-score GPT-4o skills are the historical intervention under test; repaired/balanced Qwen3-32B extraction is a stress test, not a pure single-factor causal isolation.
    Stated in §3 skill extraction and Table 4 caption; attribution of induction-sensitivity depends on accepting this joint change of extractor and demo pool.
invented entities (3)
  • four-layer gain-attribution protocol independent evidence
    purpose: Operational recipe to decide whether a structured-output skill gain is scorer-sensitive, interface-sufficient, induction-sensitive, or procedure-supported residual.
    Introduced in abstract/§1–3 and Figure 2; the paper’s main methodological object.
  • BFCL-CANONICAL independent evidence
    purpose: Released canonicalized scoring artifact/metrics for wrapper-key de-aliasing on BFCL-style outputs.
    Contribution bullet and A.16; falsifiable by re-running the released scorer on the same outputs.
  • attribution labels (interface-dominated / induction-sensitive / procedure-supported residual)
    purpose: Claim-level taxonomy for what evidence supports after the control hierarchy.
    Defined under ‘From diagnostics to attribution labels’ in §3; labels are paper-defined reporting categories.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attributing Structured-Output Gains in Function Calling: Interface Alignment versus Procedural Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCTLJSNS

@misc{pith2026260702595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attributing Structured-Output Gains in Function Calling: Interface Alignment versus Procedural Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCTLJSNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02595}
}
read the original abstract

Structured-output benchmarks reward both task decisions and interface compliance, so prompt-induced function-calling gains require attribution before they can be interpreted as transferable skill. We introduce a four-layer gain-attribution protocol for prompt-prepended skill injection, combining canonicalized rescoring, format-only controls, repaired/balanced induction, and portability checks. Applied to the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) and scoped with API-Bank, MATH-500, and MultiHop-RAG, the protocol shows that several apparent gains are better attributed to interface alignment than to procedural transfer: format-only prompts match or exceed full skills in key BFCL cells, repaired/balanced induction removes the largest sub-frontier gains, and API-Bank target-native gains are matched within 0.5 percentage points (pp) by length-matched generic procedural prompts. These findings treat format compliance as a useful engineering capability while clarifying what a structured-output score certifies. We release BFCL-CANONICAL and recommend canonicalized metrics, balanced induction, and format-only baselines for function-calling skill-gain attribution. Code and data are available at https://github.com/couragec/skill-injection-attribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02595 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effect of skill injection (∆ accuracy in percentage points (pp)) under standard vs. canonicalized scoring on BFCL. (a) Standard scoring shows large positive and negative effects. (b) Canonicalized scoring removes key-alias sensitivity for some cells, but many residual harms remain, showing why canonicalized metrics must be paired with mechanism controls and portability probes. From diagnostics to attribution labels.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Compact attribution protocol and key-alias running example. A gain is treated as procedural transfer only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Standard-scoring gain vs. canonicalized gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BFCL wrapper-key distributions before and after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-item MultiHop-RAG changes under skill@235B versus none. Small points are item￾level prediction-length and F1 changes; large markers are model means. Qwen3-235B is the only notable MultiHop-RAG gain in this scope check. only format prompts recover strict accuracy to…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Hu, Shengran and Lu, Cong and Clune, Jeff , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  2. [3]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Xu, Yiheng and Lu, Dunjie and Shen, Zhennan and Wang, Junli and Wang, Zekun and Mao, Yuchen and Xiong, Caiming and Yu, Tao , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  3. [9]

    and Mao, Huanzhi and Yan, Fanjia and Ji, Charlie Cheng-Jie and Suresh, Vishnu and Stoica, Ion and Gonzalez, Joseph E

    Patil, Shishir G. and Mao, Huanzhi and Yan, Fanjia and Ji, Charlie Cheng-Jie and Suresh, Vishnu and Stoica, Ion and Gonzalez, Joseph E. , booktitle =. The Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (. 2025 , volume =

    2025

  4. [10]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Lightman, Hunter and Kosaraju, Vineet and Burda, Yuri and Edwards, Harrison and Baker, Bowen and Lee, Teddy and Leike, Jan and Schulman, John and Sutskever, Ilya and Cobbe, Karl , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  5. [11]

    Conference on Language Modeling , year =

    Tang, Yixuan and Yang, Yi , title =. Conference on Language Modeling , year =

  6. [16]

    2023 , doi =

    Li, Minghao and Zhao, Yingxiu and Yu, Bowen and Song, Feifan and Li, Hangyu and Yu, Haiyang and Li, Zhoujun and Huang, Fei and Li, Yongbin , booktitle =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  7. [17]

    and Cao, Yuan , booktitle =

    Yao, Shunyu and Zhao, Jeffrey and Yu, Dian and Du, Nan and Shafran, Izhak and Narasimhan, Karthik R. and Cao, Yuan , booktitle =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  8. [18]

    2023 , url =

    Schick, Timo and Dwivedi-Yu, Jane and Dessi, Roberto and Raileanu, Roberta and Lomeli, Maria and Hambro, Eric and Zettlemoyer, Luke and Cancedda, Nicola and Scialom, Thomas , booktitle =. 2023 , url =

    2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [19]

    2024 , url =

    Qin, Yujia and Liang, Shihao and Ye, Yining and Zhu, Kunlun and Yan, Lan and Lu, Yaxi and Lin, Yankai and Cong, Xin and Tang, Xiangru and Qian, Bill and Zhao, Sihan and Hong, Lauren and Tian, Runchu and Xie, Ruobing and Zhou, Jie and Gerstein, Mark and Li, Dahai and Liu, Zhiyu...

    2024

  2. [20]

    and Zhang, Tianjun and Wang, Xin and Gonzalez, Joseph E

    Patil, Shishir G. and Zhang, Tianjun and Wang, Xin and Gonzalez, Joseph E. , booktitle =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  3. [21]

    , booktitle =

    Yao, Shunyu and Shinn, Noah and Razavi, Pedram and Narasimhan, Karthik R. , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  4. [23]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research , year =

    Holistic Evaluation of Language Models , author =. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , year =

  5. [24]

    Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task , author =. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =. 2018 , url =

    2018

  6. [25]

    Lastras, and Pavan Kapanipathi

    Kinjal Basu, Ibrahim Abdelaziz, Kiran Kate, Mayank Agarwal, Maxwell Crouse, Yara Rizk, Kelsey Bradford, Asim Munawar, Sadhana Kumaravel, Saurabh Goyal, Xin Wang, Luis A. Lastras, and Pavan Kapanipathi. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1702 NESTFUL : A benchmar...

    2025 doi

  7. [26]

    Jiaao Chen, Jingyuan Qi, Mingye Gao, Wei-Chen Wang, Hanrui Wang, and Di Jin. 2026. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2603.05553 EigenData : A self-evolving multi-agent platform for function-calling data synthesis, auditing, and repair . arXiv preprint

    2026 doi

  8. [27]

    Haikang Deng, Po-Nien Kung, and Nanyun Peng. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2510.03595 Decoupling task-solving and output formatting in LLM generation . arXiv preprint

    2025 doi

  9. [28]

    Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. 2025. https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2025/hash/36b7acf6f6010652b3f2a433774a66fe-Abstract-Conference.html Automated design of agentic systems . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  10. [29]

    Minghao Li, Yingxiu Zhao, Bowen Yu, Feifan Song, Hangyu Li, Haiyang Yu, Zhoujun Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.187 API-Bank : A comprehensive benchmark for tool-augmented LLM s . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empiric...

    2023 doi

  11. [30]

    Xiangyi Li, Wenbo Chen, Yimin Liu, Shenghan Zheng, Xiaokun Chen, Yifeng He, Yubo Li, Bingran You, Haotian Shen, Jiankai Sun, Shuyi Wang, Binxu Li, Qunhong Zeng, Di Wang, Xuandong Zhao, Yuanli Wang, Roey Ben Chaim, Zonglin Di, Yipeng Gao, and 22 others. 2026. https://doi.org/10...

    2026 doi arXiv

  12. [31]

    Manning, Christopher Re, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A

    Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Re, Diana Acosta-Navas...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [32]

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=v8L0pN6EOi Let's verify step by step . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  14. [33]

    Qiqiang Lin, Muning Wen, Qiuying Peng, Guanyu Nie, Junwei Liao, Jun Wang, Xiaoyun Mo, Jiamu Zhou, Cheng Cheng, Yin Zhao, Jun Wang, and Weinan Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2410.04587 Hammer : Robust function-calling for on-device language models via function mask...

    2024 doi

  15. [34]

    Zijian Lu, Yiping Zuo, Yupeng Nie, Xin He, Weibei Fan, Lianyong Qi, and Shi Jin. 2026. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2603.20340 ContractSkill : Repairable contract-based skills for multimodal web agents . arXiv preprint

    2026 doi arXiv

  16. [35]

    Jingwei Ni, Yihao Liu, Xinpeng Liu, Yutao Sun, Mengyu Zhou, Pengyu Cheng, Dexin Wang, Erchao Zhao, Xiaoxi Jiang, and Guanjun Jiang. 2026. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2603.25158 Trace2skill: Distill trajectory-local lessons into transferable agent skills . arXiv preprint

    2026 doi arXiv

  17. [36]

    Patil, Huanzhi Mao, Fanjia Yan, Charlie Cheng-Jie Ji, Vishnu Suresh, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E

    Shishir G. Patil, Huanzhi Mao, Fanjia Yan, Charlie Cheng-Jie Ji, Vishnu Suresh, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. 2025. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/patil25a.html The berkeley function calling leaderboard ( BFCL ): From tool use to agentic evaluation of large language ...

    2025

  18. [37]

    Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E

    Shishir G. Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. 2024. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/e4c61f578ff07830f5c37378dd3ecb0d-Abstract-Conference.html Gorilla : Large language model connected with massive API s . In Advances in Neural Inf...

    2024

  19. [38]

    Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Lauren Hong, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=dHng2O0Jjr...

    2024

  20. [39]

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessi, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2023/hash/d842425e4bf79ba039352da0f658a906-Abstract-Conference.html Toolformer : Language...

    2023

  21. [40]

    Zhi Rui Tam, Cheng-Kuang Wu, Yi-Lin Tsai, Chieh-Yen Lin, Hung-yi Lee, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2408.02442 Let me speak freely? a study on the impact of format restrictions on performance of large language models . arXiv preprint

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [41]

    Yixuan Tang and Yi Yang. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=t4eB3zYWBK MultiHop-RAG : Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries . In Conference on Language Modeling

    2024

  23. [42]

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2305.16291 Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models . arXiv preprint

    2023 doi arXiv

  24. [43]

    Binyan Xu, Dong Fang, Haitao Li, and Kehuan Zhang. 2026. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2604.01608 From multi-agent to single-agent: When is skill distillation beneficial? arXiv preprint

    2026 doi arXiv

  25. [44]

    Yiheng Xu, Dunjie Lu, Zhennan Shen, Junli Wang, Zekun Wang, Yuchen Mao, Caiming Xiong, and Tao Yu. 2025. https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2025/hash/c681fb2bf1d785fbc766f3ea14758aab-Abstract-Conference.html AgentTrek : Agent trajectory synthesis via guiding replay ...

    2025

  26. [45]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, and 41 others. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2505...

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [46]

    Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=roNSXZpUDN -bench: A benchmark for tool-agent-user interaction in real-world domains . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  28. [47]

    Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X ReAct : Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.